• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

AHM said:
(Perhaps in response; perhaps not), I've been meaning to mention that:

Note that the "history" in the SCOTUS ruling's "history and text" criterion
is the history that the court's been briefed on in a case.
This places a premium on 2A attorneys researching the legal record
(which they appear to have done an excellent job of so far).

And it implies to me that the 6-3 court has sent a message to the gun-grabbers
that SCOTUS don't owe them the duty of pulling anti-gun counterpoints out of the justices' own grommets
in order to conduct "balanced" deliberations. If there's some case out there
supporting the anti- side which a conservative justice knows of,
the new standard of scrutiny places them under no obligation
to be a devil's advocate and chirp up with it themselves.
They might do it out of collegiality, but no guarantees.

That's not totally out of character for appeals courts.
They're not normally interested in hearing of evidence
about the original case which is not preserved in the trial court's records.


It could be relevant here because there is probably some very relevant SCOTUS case law
about the distinction between arrests and convictions.

Note also, that it should be an easy lift for 2A counsel to point out if/whenever
these desperate additions to denial criteria include arrest lookback periods
which exceed the statute of limitations for the arrest's charges.

If the statute of limitations for prosecuting someone for a crime is 4 years,
but the gun-grabbers want to disqualify them if they had an arrest within 5 years,
that should be a non-starter right there. If the State doesn't care enough about the
crime to pursue it within a certain time, then they have no business claiming that
the unproven allegations are too horrific to permit gun ownership.

If a state's ironclad "speedy trial" deadlines (e.g. six months)
are much shorter than the statute of limitations (e.g. 4-5 years),
then there may even be an argument that any arrest lookback
greater than (e.g.) half a year is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, it ought to count for something if lack of prosecution
sprang from a dismissal of charges with prejudice,
or grand juries returning No True Bill.


To the degree that my musings here have any value,
I hope this post is from my keyboard to Comm2A counsels' ears.


Gun Control
Is
Jim Crow​

(This time I added italics.
I like it).


Interesting that the (pirated) copy of the op-ed does mention the
Black Panthers, which was gonna be my point.

The LA Times publishing that seems to show a remarkable lack
of self-awareness. They wouldn't do it if they didn't think it would
help the anti's. But the massive overreach and failure under Biden
have more and more Blacks seriously questioning
whether they want to be taken for granted by Donks
(with nothing to show for it but crumbs for entitlement payments
and implosion of their culture) for the next half dozen decades.


An easy substantive response:
"Since the law provides that you determine the meaning of my LTC restrictions -
not an arresting jurisdiction, not a prosecutor, and not even a trial court -
if you want print a new LTC, then I want you to give me a signed and dated letter
defining my license restrictions as: NONE".


An inference:
If @Wramos93 hasn't priced hiring a lawyer to press the matter promptly,
then he hasn't received any actual legal advice.


They may manage to screw that up.

When Bell Canada complained that people were violating telecom tariffs
by directly connecting non-Bell modems to the phone lines,
the Canadian regulator said, "OK; give us a technical spec that customer equipment must meet".
Bell drafted specs that no cost-effective device on earth could meet.
The regulators promptly tested all of Bell's data-sets,
which of course failed royally (<- this being Canada).
At which point Bell slunk off and wrote a valid spec...

In the modestly possible event they mandate training or performance
above the police academy's,
smart attorneys will be able to use that to their clients' advantage down the road.
(Whether criminal defenders or aggrieved plaintiffs' counsel).


If you try and carry outside your restrictions,
you won't pull it off.


How many of the Nine privately don't think Donk operatives
in battleground states' key dumpster-fire cities
committed massive voting fraud?
How many of the Nine privately don't think the Deep State is running almost everything?

The Six may have concerns far beyond the level of mere tweaks to the Federalist Papers.


Mass transit? <Bleep> that noise.
More finance corporations move to Newark in 3...2...1...
Click to expand...
Illinois, when they were forced to issue their new carry law by SCOTUS
 
edmorseiii said:
I'm pretty sure the CC law here requires that the state automatically files for reciprocity with the remaining states that don't honor the NH PRL every year. It would probably be a simple and minor thing to raise hell about when MA says no.
Click to expand...
I like it. Lay the trap! Clarence is waiting.
 
T-Unit said:
Oh, this is good because if two states have a spat then it's resolved directly at the Supreme Court. If Maryland gets pissy we could have national reciprocity by Labor Day.
Click to expand...

This might be an "opening shot" there, but I don't think that's the kind of interstate "spat" the constitution says SCOTUS takes up. WV is asking MD to sit down and chat; if MD says no, it ends right there. WV is within its rights to ask MD to consider reciprocity, and MD is within its rights to be a dick about it.

I think the kind of "spat" you're thinking about would involve something like an extradition dispute, or a cross-border feud like the Hatfields and McCoys, or one state trying to clamp internal tariffs on another state's goods.
 
Last edited:
safetyfirst2125 said:

View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1541772456414785536?s=20&t=SkNNqi1__5YHcUCzrREc2Q
Click to expand...

Seems NY is headed for further SC b-slappage.
VetteGirlMA said:
Sounds like we're going to have to drag them kicking and screaming through the courts. It's not like the governor or AG care, they're just playing with our own money to use it against us. I wonder if I can ask for a refund on my taxes when MA loses?
Click to expand...

It is very similar to the Civil Rights era. People forget that time. Hell, not enough people around to remember. When people thought, "they get their own water fountain. What are they complaining about???" (Aside: Bryce Dallas Howard in The Help - YEOWWWW!!!!!) We've got a pile of George Wallace's around. In 20 years they won't matter. They'll be footnotes of this battle.

ReggieB9mm said:
These arrogant tyrants all think they are Harvey Spector’s when in reality they have more in common with a Nevada whore.
Click to expand...

More like Phil Spector. ROFL!!!!

Coyote33 said:
Earth to GOAL:

Why is this NOT ON TWITTER????? Or am I missing it? Looking at @GOALupdate https://twitter.com/GOALupdate

That is where everything related to this case is happening right now.

It is where this is being fought for "mindshare" right now.
Click to expand...

Outside of Donny Drumpf, no one cares about Twitter.

AHM said:
That right there is whole new levels of stupid.
Click to expand...

You're expecting them NOT to double-down on the stupid? It's true panic. It's Occupado Estrada de wallo and BLM and all that. "I FEEEEEL bad!"
 
Picton said:
Anything else on this?
Click to expand...

Today is an opinion day, I believe there are 4 open cases they’ll issue opinions on. It’s not scheduled to be an orders day and there wasn’t a conference between Monday and Wednesday so they haven’t discussed the pending cert yet.

Amy Howe of Scotusblog will explain it on the livestream this morning when they cover the release of opinions. SCOTUS will do a clean up conference after the last opinion day. That’s when they discuss all remaining issues before the court. Nothing is scheduled yet

SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
 
Dennis in MA said:
Seems NY is headed for further SC b-slappage.


It is very similar to the Civil Rights era. People forget that time. Hell, not enough people around to remember. When people thought, "they get their own water fountain. What are they complaining about???" (Aside: Bryce Dallas Howard in The Help - YEOWWWW!!!!!) We've got a pile of George Wallace's around. In 20 years they won't matter. They'll be footnotes of this battle.



More like Phil Spector. ROFL!!!!



Outside of Donny Drumpf, no one cares about Twitter.



You're expecting them NOT to double-down on the stupid? It's true panic. It's Occupado Estrada de wallo and BLM and all that. "I FEEEEEL bad!"
Click to expand...

If someone were anti 2A, I’d be upset with the NY legislature and governor. If they set up some hurdles SCOTUS the courts may let some or all of those hurdles stand. NY will go way to far and create a court case which gets SCOTUS attention

For one I think the subway ban will fall. Especially in NYC, a lot of people do not have cars and the subway is essential for travel. If it were gun free and had metal detectors and security when you entered like a court house, they would probably be able to justify the restriction enough to satisfy most courts. But to say no guns or weapons will be similar to their carry ban law SCOTUS just struck down. Criminals will still have weapons and lawful people sitting ducks.

I think SCOTUS was pretty clear in what they consider sensitive places. Places which are a limited area and can be secured like a build or event with a security perimeter. Subways are very large, have no security perimeter or way to exclude all weapons with metal detectors and security
 
Hoover said:
If someone were anti 2A, I’d be upset with the NY legislature and governor. If they set up some hurdles SCOTUS the courts may let some or all of those hurdles stand. NY will go way to far and create a court case which gets SCOTUS attention

For one I think the subway ban will fall. Especially in NYC, a lot of people do not have cars and the subway is essential for travel. If it were gun free and had metal detectors and security when you entered like a court house, they would probably be able to justify the restriction enough to satisfy most courts. But to say no guns or weapons will be similar to their carry ban law SCOTUS just struck down. Criminals will still have weapons and lawful people sitting ducks.

I think SCOTUS was pretty clear in what they consider sensitive places. Places which are a limited area and can be secured like a build or event with a security perimeter. Subways are very large, have no security perimeter or way to exclude all weapons with metal detectors and security
Click to expand...
NY: walk, bike, or take a cab (NB: Uber/Lyft officially prohibit firearms). You have no right to the subway, peasant.
 
Mesatchornug said:
NY: walk, bike, or take a cab (NB: Uber/Lyft officially prohibit firearms). You have no right to the subway, peasant.
Click to expand...
This is an ideally targeted ban to screw over the "ordinaries" while not seriously impacting the elites who were always able to get carry permits.

The funny thing is that Uber added the prohibition after an armed driver stopped a mass shooting.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Paging @Dr. Kang Lu , paging @Dr. Kang Lu , please contact your NH governor on the white courtesy phone stat.
Click to expand...
images
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
Are there other ones for 2A that are waiting for a ruling ?
Click to expand...

NYSRPA was the only 2A case this term. There are 4 cases pending cert, 2 mag cases, an AWB and a carry case. They need to deny, accept or vacate and remand those 4 in the orders. They probably won’t accept one, though. The Young v Hawaii is a carry case where he lost in the district court, won in the 9th and lost en banc 9th. That is either getting reversed and remanded or just vacated and remanded because it’s a similar situation as the NYSRPA case where they essential ban the right to carry.

Most likely they’ll vacate and remand the mag and AWB cases. That’s good but not great for MA and other states with AWB and Mag limits. If SCOTUS took them up we’d have a decision by this time next year. By sending it back to the lower courts in those circuits, those residents may get positive results even before next year but those decisions in circuits don’t mean anything outside of the states in those circuits
 

Similar threads

The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
634
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
291
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
183
Coyote33
Coyote33
Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
  • Locked
Hawaii State Supreme Court Rules No Right to Bear Arms
Replies
2
Views
374
Admin
Admin
Back
Top Bottom